In the past few years, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has not had a single
major electoral success. The results of the recent elections in four states
have been just one more in the setbacks that the party has been experiencing.
At one time BJP used to have a slogan "
AAJ CHAR PRADESH, KAL POORA DESH"
(Today we rule in four states, tomorrow we shall rule the complete country).
Times have changed. Today BJP rules in just three states (Gujarat, Himachal
Pradesh, Jharkand) and the centre. The party is acutely aware that it is
going downhill rather than being on the ascendant. The sentiment today is
"AAJ CHAR SARKAR, KAL HONGE BEKAR
" (Today we have four governments, tomorrow we may be unemployed).

The despondency in BJP is not without reason. The party's Governments in
the three states are not the most popular governments. The performance of
the Central Government may be classified as good or bad depending on one's
political loyalties. But not even the most loyal BJP supporter is confident
of being able to win the next general election on the strength of the
performance of the Central Government.

While there may be arguments about the performance of the Government,
there can be no arguments about the fact that the Government is led by aging
leaders who are on the wrong side of seventy. Would the septuagenarians be
able to lead the party through the elections even after they have become
octogenarians? Possibly, yes. The more important question is whether they
should.

There can be no doubt that the old men controlling BJP today have sacrificed
their lives and have built the party to the level to which it has reached.
The party has in fact grown around them. They basked in the glory when they
took the party up the hill. Is it fair to blame them when the party seems to
be going downhill? No, surely no one in the party can even dream of pointing
a finger in their direction.

Each of these leaders enjoys a God like status in the eyes of his supporters
in the party. One can neither question God nor question His creation. So the
party is constrained to look at everyone else. Infighting is blamed for the
debacle. Groupism among party cadres is blamed. Anti-incumbency factor is
quoted. Inability to do propaganda about the good work done by the Government
is cited as a reason. Non-cooperative attitude of media and bureaucracy are
favourite scapegoats. Some jugglery with figures about voting percentage and
vote division in combination with criticism of the first-past-the-post system
completes the analysis of every defeat of BJP.

Such analysis of defeat has been heard again and again year after year
at all the "Sameeksha Baithaks" (Review meetings) that are convened in
various states by the party. It is time that the party moved beyond such
routine exercises. It is time that the party invites and gets prepared for
some uncomfortable questions. Was it Einstein who said that asking the right
question is half the answer? The party badly needs people who can ask the
right questions.

But before that the first question is whether the party has any such
people among its own "disciplined" cadre. Least likely. The party needs
ruthless iconoclastic critics who will look at its structure, leaders,
policies, systems, members, performance, programmes, in fact at everything
connected with the party. No organization, whether in the political field
or in the field of business, normally has such critics within its members.
In the field of business and industry, there are consultants who specialize
in reengineering of organizations. Unfortunately, there are no such
consultants in the market for political parties. BJP will have to either
discover someone capable of acting as such a consultant or else create someone
who can fulfill this responsibility.

As and when BJP can find someone to act as "Reengineering Consultant",
BJP will have to give a brief to the consultant. The brief may ask the
consultant to inter alia look at the following points:

ENTRY LEVEL PROFILE
- What is the profile of people entering BJP today? Has the profile changed
during the past twenty years? Does the party need to do anything to change
this profile?

INTERNAL STRUCTURE
- Does the internal structure need any fundamental
changes? Does the internal structure of the party promote the best and the
most talented to rise upwards or is it the opposite? Is there any truth in
the allegations that the pressures of internal democracy and collective
decision, combined with self interest ensure that the weakest of the lot
with no leadership qualities gets promoted?

INTELLECTUALS
- Does the party have sufficient persons at each level who
can guide the party on policy issues and in matters related to governance?
How competent are the intellectuals who are with the party? What should the
party do to improve its interaction with the intellectuals and to attract
better, more competent intellectuals in larger numbers to the party?

MEMBERS
- Is the present classification of members suited to the needs
of the party? Is there any truth in the allegation that a large number of
party members are fictitious? Should the party aim to be leaner and fitter
fighting machine or should it continue with the omnibus model?

LEADERS
- Is the party leadership at different states and centre
sufficiently competent? What should be done to improve the competence of
the leaders at all levels?

POLICIES
- Are the present systems of policy making and of debates on
policy issues adequate for the needs of the party? Are the present policies
in line with the ideological direction of the party? Has the party committed
some policy somersaults in the past few years, which have alienated the
traditional party supporters and sympathizers? If yes, are these somersaults
in line with the ideology of the party? Does the party need to have a
better two-way communication with its cadre on policy issues?

IDEOLOGY
- Is the ideology of the party sufficiently clearly defined?
Does the ideology need any fundamental changes in view of the changed
circumstances? Is the party leadership and cadre well versed with the
ideology?

GOVERNANCE
- In objective terms, how well has each of the ministers
of the party performed? Have the party ministers furthered the ideological
and policy agenda of the party? What has been the support that the party
received from each minister? How efficient have the ministers been in
responding to requests from party functionaries and cadre? What can be done
in terms of institutional steps to improve the performance of BJP ministers
etc. in future Governments?

ROLE AS OPPOSITION
- Has the party fulfilled people's expectations
as an opposition party? Has the party built credibility and hope? Does
the party convey the impression of being a responsible and capable party
with clear direction on various policy issues?

FEEDBACK
- Is the party getting adequate quality feedback from the
people? Is there a tendency to give only palatable feedback to the
leadership? How to improve the ground level information gathering
capacities of the party?

FULLTIMERS
- Are the fulltime workers of the party playing the role
that they should or have they become like the clergy?

The above list of questions is not exhaustive. The consultant and the party
may add any number of questions. However, the key to the success of the
exercise will lie in the ability of the party to accept the outcome of
uncomfortable questions. Any reengineering exercise involves breaking of
the old before the new can be created. Needless to say that this is not
without pain. More often than not, reengineering is like a surgery without
anesthesia. Yet, it must be carried out because at the end of it, the
organization emerges stronger and healthier.

The problem with such a painful exercise is that normally organizational
managers cannot order something that may recommend themselves to be sacked.
In companies that are going downhill, it is rarely the Chief Executive
Officer who can order for a reengineering expert to analyze, dissect
and recommend. The initiative for an overhaul normally comes from the
owners or shareholders who are concerned about falling returns on their
investments. In case of BJP, one wonders who is the real owner of the party.
Is it the Sangh pariwar (RSS clan)? Is it the large number of members (real
and fictitious) spread across the country? Is it everyone who has supported,
funded or voted for the party in the past? Is it the country as a whole? The
question can be answered in a number of ways depending on the way one looks
at it. But there can be no doubt that the leaders who are currently controlling
the affairs of the party are only managers and are not its owners.

The fact is that in BJP, unlike the Congress, there is no one who can act
as the owner of the party. The Nehru-Gandhi family viewed Congress as a
personal property and brought about revolutionary changes within the party
from time to time. Established groups and leaders have been often overthrown
and new blood, new talent promoted. This is not to argue for dynastic rule.
But one must admit that dynastic rule, combined with a relentless pursuit of
exploits of power has once again catapulted Congress into positions of power
in almost half the states of India. Probably, the strength of BJP has become
its weakness.

Internal democracy and absence of dynastic rule has been a strength of BJP.
However, this has also meant that there are no owners who can order for
ruthless surgery and if needed amputation. This is the greatest challenge
before BJP today. Will its leaders have the courage to sign up for something
that will herald the death of all that is due to die or will they instead let
the party die? The challenge is also for all those who support the party
ideologically, financially and physically. Will they push their sick friend
into the hospital or will they keep entertaining their dear friend with fruits,
flower and music unto his last breath?

The answers to these questions will determine not just the future of BJP,
but also the future of Indian polity. Best wishes to those who are ready to
catch the bull by the horn and apologies to all those who like to always talk
sweet.